TWO 01/50 1999 Metal Gems Barry Bonds listed

[asymmetricalbet]

Originally Posted by RedMike

You seen what some authentic altered stuff go for?

The publicity on these cards made them go way cheaper than what it would have gone for if the two cards came out years apart.

IMO the PWCC card was shilled too. No way it goes for over 4k more than the other over one grade difference. That’s not how 90s cards work. The grades of 7 and 8 are basically the same for most 90s collectors.

[RedMike]

Originally Posted by asymmetricalbet

IMO the PWCC card was shilled too. No way it goes for over 4k more than the other over one grade difference. That’s not how 90s cards work. The grades of 7 and 8 are basically the same for most 90s collectors.

It's not shilled because i bought it and if these post didn't come out I would have probably ended paying way more to obtain it.

I went after the 7 too but I value 8 way more than 7 especially since the back of this 7 looked like it had more wear.

I guess I'm not like most collectors - but I'm stoked to add it and got no issues with all the noise surrounding this card.

Also has PSA Nat Turner confirming authenticity was good enough for me. I'll also try to see if I can find the person who originally pulled this and have a conversation with him to get the full story but I wanted a nice condition one of these a long time to add so I'm happy with it.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by RedMike

It's not shilled because i bought it and if these post didn't come out I would have probably ended paying way more to obtain it.

I went after the 7 too but I value 8 way more than 7 especially since the back of this 7 looked like it had more wear.

I guess I'm not like most collectors - but I'm stoked to add it and got no issues with all the noise surrounding this card.

Also has PSA Nat Turner confirming authenticity was good enough for me. I'll also try to see if I can find the person who originally pulled this and have a conversation with him to get the full story but I wanted a nice condition one of these a long time to add so I'm happy with it.

Congrats! What an amazing card to add to your collection.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by asymmetricalbet

IMO the PWCC card was shilled too. No way it goes for over 4k more than the other over one grade difference. That’s not how 90s cards work. The grades of 7 and 8 are basically the same for most 90s collectors.

You couldn’t be more wrong.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by asymmetricalbet

IMO the PWCC card was shilled too. No way it goes for over 4k more than the other over one grade difference. That’s not how 90s cards work. The grades of 7 and 8 are basically the same for most 90s collectors.

The card may have been shilled -- the buyer may not realize this, as it's very common with auctions -- but it makes sense that an 8 would go for a lot more than a 7 of a condition-sensitive 90s low-numbered card of an all-time great player. Collectors/investors often want the best condition of a card they can get.

[asymmetricalbet]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

You couldn’t be more wrong.

Nope. Most do in fact think like that. In the words of Nat Turner, “Just finding the rare 90s cards is 90% of the battle.” Once you are 90% of the way home, people care much less about the grade. If you care that much about getting the highest grade possible on rare low serial-numbered 90s cards you will never build much of a collection. The buyer here had the chance to be choosy because there were two available (plus another coming via 90s Auctions in a few weeks). Most aren’t afforded that opportunity with how frequently these pop up. But for Bonds, outside of Star Rubies, more 99 PMGs have changed hands than any other rare insert of his. They have been passed around in a number of circles and since they come up more often, the yeah, you may get a chance to be more choosy now but that is usually not the case. The vast majority of big 90s card collectors will vouch for this here. A simple comparison of top players sale prices on the same card with different grades will also reveal this to be true (occasional exceptions notwithstanding).

[asymmetricalbet]

Originally Posted by RedMike

It's not shilled because i bought it and if these post didn't come out I would have probably ended paying way more to obtain it.

I went after the 7 too but I value 8 way more than 7 especially since the back of this 7 looked like it had more wear.

I guess I'm not like most collectors - but I'm stoked to add it and got no issues with all the noise surrounding this card.

Also has PSA Nat Turner confirming authenticity was good enough for me. I'll also try to see if I can find the person who originally pulled this and have a conversation with him to get the full story but I wanted a nice condition one of these a long time to add so I'm happy with it.

Congrats on the buy.

[eephuspitch]

Just a quick post to say that I have been in touch with Nat and he did confirm they are both legit per PSA's review. I shared that info with Red Mike.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/sD9...ibextid=oFDknk
One important point is that when PSA (and others) claim they are both "legit," they mean both printed by the manufacturer. I suppose it's possible both were mistakenly put in packs, but it's FAR more likely one is a replacement copy that got backdoored or hit the market after the bankruptcy. When I said one wasn't legit, that's what I mean. "Legit" to me means pack pulled.

This is my thought too. PSA saying legit without specifically saying what legit means leaves a lot to be desired. A backdoored card can still be ‘legit’, it’s just not pack inserted. That distinction does matter to many people, although usually it’s more obvious to tell (no serial number, non-embossed, etc). In 97 Finest the difference in value between backdoor and pack pulled GERs is massive, although you can tell easily. Those non-diecut backdoors can still be graded by the grading companies though and thus seen as legit.

I don’t think PSA could possibly know with certainty they are both packpulled. Occam’s razor suggests that it is far more likely a backdoor involved. Tbh I don’t necessarily think whatever PSA is saying is some golden oracle from the clouds either…far from it…seen enough stuff from them over the years.

[keysersoze3421]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Nobody has asked RogerMaris?

He works for PSA. He told me both look real to him.

[rogermaris]

Originally Posted by keysersoze3421

He works for PSA. He told me both look real to him.

Just to elaborate, I've examined both these cards, and I do not have any reason to believe either card has a counterfeit serial number. There are several possible scenarios for how two cards with the same serial came to be:

1. One of the two copies was sent in for replacement, then subsequently backdoored
2. One of the two copies was sent in for replacement, then sent back to the customer along with the new copy (not unheard of)
3. Two serial numbers were inadvertently created and inserted into packs (not unheard of)

If one copy was sent in for replacement, it's impossible to know which copy was subsequently backdoored. And if both cards were sent back to the buyer, then neither would be considered backdoored.

At the end of the day, I'm of the belief that all cards are innocent until proven guilty. And because I can't prove that either card is backdoored, then IMO they should both be treated as legitimate.

[KhalDrogo]

Thanks RM. Always helpful.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by rogermaris

At the end of the day, I'm of the belief that all cards are innocent until proven guilty. And because I can't prove that either card is backdoored, then IMO they should both be treated as legitimate.

The problem is that most collectors don't feel that way. If they see two cards with the same serial number, it raises questions. Collectors don't consider the card innocent until proven guilty. If there is a question of authenticity, they pay less than when there is no question. The risk that your card might someday be shown to be backdoored has to be factored into purchase price.

[rogermaris]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

The problem is that most collectors don't feel that way. If they see two cards with the same serial number, it raises questions. Collectors don't consider the card innocent until proven guilty. If there is a question of authenticity, they pay less than when there is no question. The risk that your card might someday be shown to be backdoored has to be factored into purchase price.

I see where you're coming from, but I want to reiterate that there is no question of authenticity, as both stamps were applied by Fleer. If collectors decide to adjust their purchase price on the premise that there are two legitimate copies, that's their prerogative. PSA's duty is to establish authenticity and condition, not marketability or value. In this case, both cards have authentic stamps and there is no concrete evidence that either card was backdoored, and there are possible scenarios to explain how both cards were released legitimately.

Even then, I don't necessary agree with you when it comes to the value of cards with identical serial numbers. There are some sets where all cards have at least one identically stamped counterpart (1998 Ultra baseball masterpieces, 1999 Ultra basketball/baseball masterpieces, etc). These sets are nonetheless among some of the highest priced, most in demand sets in existence. Most collectors don't care that there are at least two copies of each, despite it being impossible to know which was originally inserted into packs.

When it comes to the future of these Bonds PMGs, I personally don't think there's much risk of evidence emerging that proves one of the copies was backdoored because I can't imagine what that evidence would even look like. There are some cases where it can be determined (e.g. the long slashes used on the 1997 Essential Credentials replacements, or the Team Skybox stamp being used on 1997 Star Rubies replacements), but in this case there is no distinguishing difference.

[3124508 on COMC]

The PSA 8 was stamped at the same time as the other exemplars. Real, fake, backdoored, or pack-pulled, the PSA 7 was likely not.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by rogermaris

I see where you're coming from, but I want to reiterate that there is no question of authenticity, as both stamps were applied by Fleer. If collectors decide to adjust their purchase price on the premise that there are two legitimate copies, that's their prerogative. PSA's duty is to establish authenticity and condition, not marketability or value. In this case, both cards have authentic stamps and there is no concrete evidence that either card was backdoored, and there are possible scenarios to explain how both cards were released legitimately.

It's worth noting there are some sets where all cards have at least one identically stamped counterpart (1998 Ultra baseball masterpieces, 1999 Ultra basketball/baseball masterpieces, etc). These sets are nonetheless among some of the highest priced, most in demand sets in existence. Most collectors don't care that there are at least two copies of each, despite it being impossible to know which was originally inserted into packs.

When it comes to the future of these cards, I personally don't think there's much risk of evidence emerging that proves one of the copies was backdoored because I can't imagine what that evidence would even look like. There are some cases where it can be determined (e.g. the long slashes used on the 1997 Essential Credentials replacements), but in this case there is no distinguishing difference.

Do you think the distinction in the "T" that was pointed out in this thread could be an indication some day as to which was backdoored? I notice some other copies for other players have that difference as well. If it can be shown that one style came out of packs and the other was replacements, it could potentially have an impact down the road.

I get what you're saying about the masterpieces, but there is a difference between 2 total cards and potentially 100. You will notice the discount due to backdoors much less in that case. But make no mistake, collectors value a backdoored copy less. So it matters.

[rogermaris]

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

The PSA 8 was stamped at the same time as the other exemplars. Real, fake, backdoored, or pack-pulled, the PSA 7 was likely not.

I would not use placement of the two digit serial number to determine which is backdoored. I've compiled images of many sequentially numbered serial numbered cards and the stamp placement can really be all over the place. There are runs of stamps where they're positioned similarly but then one random one will be in a completely different spot.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Do you think the distinction in the "T" that was pointed out in this thread could be an indication some day as to which was backdoored? I notice some other copies for other players have that difference as well. If it can be shown that one style came out of packs and the other was replacements, it could potentially have an impact down the road.

That part of the stamp would not have been created just for the replacements. Replacement copies were pre-stamped at the same time as the pack-inserted copies (in this case with OF 50 PRECIOUS METAL GEMS). What you are seeing is likely due to overstamping/understamping or due to the way the image was captured. Different imaging mediums can yield surprisingly different looking results for the same card depending on how the light reflects off the foil of the stamp.

[mjohnatgt]

https://blowoutbuzz.wordpress.com/20...bering-errors/

https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...ographs/155752

I guess that policy is consistent with the multiple 1/1s created by Topps accidentally for the 2018 Transcendant VIP Party. You can see that multiple 1/1s of the same card were graded by PSA with numbers (Mookie Betts, Jose Abreu, Ian Happ). Although I would recommend in cases like this where it's known in advance, that a note be added to the PSA flip saying "(Actually 13 1/1s produced by Topps)" or something.